St James' Park

[Guest]

If they had a dedicated standing area behind the goal, so it could be something similar to Dortmund, I'd be all for a new stadium. Who wouldn't want to be part of that. 

[NUFC91]

Reality is as well platinum club and 1892 are shite fkr corporate but £1150-1300. If you were in there and had the cash surely you would rather pay extra 300 and have something much better.

 

You can cater for corporate and fans wanting to stand so much better

[Groundhog63]

Just done the survey. Clearly they want a new one. 

[mickthemagpie]

2 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

Just done the survey. Clearly they want a new one. 

Even the wife got this impression when she filled hers in!

[OptimusSlime]

I predict a renovation of sorts (with price increases) this summer - they have declined Rugby magic weekend this year and no gigs announced.  Summer is for whatever refurb they can squeeze in.  One of the Qs was “how much extra would you pay for a refurb”.  They know tens of thousands are locked out so expect them to squeeze every current ST holder in the knowledge there are dozens ready to snap up every ticket.

 

Then the brand new stadium feels inevitable but a long way away, perhaps a decade.

[Guest]

Luckily for them, I told them I'd pay exactly 0% extra. 

[ryanegg]

Are they taking the piss? Don’t even get an option to choose your seat?

[ponsaelius]

The stadium location is both the best thing about the club but also a massive pain in the arse for their dreams of revenue maximisation at all costs.

 

You can read between the lines to see how they are grappling with this reality. Perfect location means guaranteed huge crowds every week and an iconic stadium brand for the club, but it also means no fucker is interested in rocking up an hour before to eat and drink overpriced shit when there's a thousand better places in walking distance. 

 

I've heard on the grapevine that they are completely not interested in the arena site. I do find it mildly surprising if true as it's probably perfect for fulfilling the niche of not quite being out of town but also being peripheral enough that they could probably drag people in early the way Spurs stadium does, or have it surrounded by fan parks and soulless club associated eateries ?

[Orphanage]

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

In this scenario surely they'd manage it so that we're away for maximum one season.

Ffs if it was built on Castle Leazes we'd play at St James until the new stadiums complete 

[Orphanage]

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Burnden was literally wooden and 102 years old upon closure, however the site of the Reebok is awful. It's literally on a retail world type thing. Obviously we wouldn't do that but we may have to "write off" a season in terms of ST holders being able to attend every home game.

 

Removing the 3pm blackout would help.... 

Wasnt half of the away end at Burnden a supermarket ? When we beat them 1-3 in Ginolas first game for us we sang " You only sing when youre shoppin - sing when youre shoppin , you only sing when youre shoppin " 

?. Ginola skimmed the bar from near the halfway line and one of our lot shouted " Hoo man ! Hees got more skill in eez cock than yeev got in ya hurl teem "

?

[Wandy]

6 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

The stadium location is both the best thing about the club but also a massive pain in the arse for their dreams of revenue maximisation at all costs.

 

You can read between the lines to see how they are grappling with this reality. Perfect location means guaranteed huge crowds every week and an iconic stadium brand for the club, but it also means no fucker is interested in rocking up an hour before to eat and drink overpriced shit when there's a thousand better places in walking distance. 

 

I've heard on the grapevine that they are completely not interested in the arena site. I do find it mildly surprising if true as it's probably perfect for fulfilling the niche of not quite being out of town but also being peripheral enough that they could probably drag people in early the way Spurs stadium does, or have it surrounded by fan parks and soulless club associated eateries ?

If they include catering & entertainment facilities that are impressive and affordable enough I’m pretty sure that they’d entice enough people in mind, especially with a 70k+ stadium. And particularly, the all-new fans that have no experience of the ‘established’ pre-match rituals.

[Whitley mag]

8 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

The stadium location is both the best thing about the club but also a massive pain in the arse for their dreams of revenue maximisation at all costs.

 

You can read between the lines to see how they are grappling with this reality. Perfect location means guaranteed huge crowds every week and an iconic stadium brand for the club, but it also means no fucker is interested in rocking up an hour before to eat and drink overpriced shit when there's a thousand better places in walking distance. 

 

I've heard on the grapevine that they are completely not interested in the arena site. I do find it mildly surprising if true as it's probably perfect for fulfilling the niche of not quite being out of town but also being peripheral enough that they could probably drag people in early the way Spurs stadium does, or have it surrounded by fan parks and soulless club associated eateries ?

The arena site could really expand the City Centre and drive investment into that area. With river nearby they could certainly build something that is spectacular on that site.

 

If I had to choose I would probably go down the Castle Leazes route, with a land swap and new park leading to City Centre.

 

The city centre does lack green spaces and it could really add something if done well.

 

 

[Orphanage]

1 hour ago, ponsaelius said:

They won't say it explicitly but there's only basically four viable options:

 

1. Expand Gallowgate, East Stand and stadium wide renovation. Max capacity probably about 62k. Positives are minimal disruption and retain historic location. Negatives (depending on your perspective) are probably limited in terms of internal improvements and means stadium is maxed out forever in terms of capacity.

 

2. Rebuild on same site. Perceived positives are it is possible to more or less do whatever you want while retaining historic location. Unlimited scope for corporate and offering for hosting other events. Could go to any capacity which desired. Main negative is that demolish and rebuild will mean at least 2 years in exile either at a temporary stadium or another stadium somewhere else.

 

3. New stadium on the Arena site. As above positives are the scope to do more or less whatever you want. No disruption at all. However complete loss of historic location, and also slightly more peripheral in terms of relationship with the city and transport nodes.

 

4. Build new stadium on Castle Leazes. Again more or less freedom to build whatever type of stadium you want up to any capacity. Although it is in a new location I would say it retains the spirit of the historic location - particularly if connected down to Strawberry place through enhanced/new parkland. No need for any play in exile.

2 is pointless cos youd still be dealing with the same footprint 

[Scoot]

I still haven't got thos survey.

[Orphanage]

7 minutes ago, Wandy said:

If they include catering & entertainment facilities that are impressive and affordable enough I’m pretty sure that they’d entice enough people in mind, especially with a 70k+ stadium. And particularly, the all-new fans that have no experience of the ‘established’ pre-match rituals.

Easy way round that for the club would be to say you have to be in the ground at least an hour before kickoff 

[Wallsendmag]

1 hour ago, ponsaelius said:

The survey is awful mind. There is one cursory mention of improving the atmosphere. Literally everything else is about improving corporate, comfy seats, food and drink, how much you are willing to spend. All stuff I literally couldn't give a single fuck about - but this seems the way it's going to go.

 

Particularly jarring when you consider Mehrdad's comments on atmosphere.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't keen on the "how much extra would you be prepared to pay......?" questions.

[Dr.Spaceman]

38 minutes ago, Orphanage said:

Wasnt half of the away end at Burnden a supermarket ? When we beat them 1-3 in Ginolas first game for us we sang " You only sing when youre shoppin - sing when youre shoppin , you only sing when youre shoppin " 

?. Ginola skimmed the bar from near the halfway line and one of our lot shouted " Hoo man ! Hees got more skill in eez cock than yeev got in ya hurl teem "

?

 

I've only been there once, when they beat Spurs 6-1 in the FA Cup. I was about 8 or 9 at the time so my memory is sketchy, but bloody hell my uncle (Bolton ST holder) was embarrassed by it.

[Sima]

54 minutes ago, ryanegg said:

Are they taking the piss? Don’t even get an option to choose your seat?

 

That’s outrageous.

[GeordieT]

Sorry this survey is absolutely abhorrent.   Customers not fans. It is evident what they are trying to do - build two separate business cases for staying put and renovating or moving.  
 

Read earlier in the week that at White Hart Lane spend per head was £1.75. In the new stadium, it’s about £16. Firstly we aren’t that supporter base, and secondly, the location of the stadium in relation to other quality independent offerings in the city - you’d never get me and many others turning up for an hour and a half before for some overpriced tempura chicken and chips.

 

Unlike other posters I do wonder whether the results of this - which look to be universally negative - will dampen any enthusiasm for a move amongst the hierarchy. 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by GeordieT

[gbandit]

Main thing that makes me not want to get to the ground early or buy drinks / food is that it’s rammed and the queues are long. Would far prefer to just relax somewhere quiet out of the ground and have a nice meal. Would definitely eat street food in the ground if it was quality and there weren’t big queues though 

[midds]

The questions seem pretty direct and a bit full on but they need to test the water somehow. I get it's a bit unsavoury asking how much more you'd be prepared to pay, that's a bit naughty, but they need to ask direct questions as they may need to make a billion quid decision in the very near future. I'm not a season ticket holder any longer so I've not been consulted which is fine but I think you just need to be honest and respond to it as face value. They're just putting the feelers out, if people don't want to pay more than they currently do so then they need to say so 

[TwoForJoy]

They've clearly had their eyes opened in pre-season out in Atlanta. Their stadium does look good to be fair.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt27Li7lxvc

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Main thing that makes me not want to get to the ground early or buy drinks / food is that it’s rammed and the queues are long. Would far prefer to just relax somewhere quiet out of the ground and have a nice meal. Would definitely eat street food in the ground if it was quality and there weren’t big queues though 

That's what I think. It's like getting on ryanair 3 hours early just to eat shit from the trolley 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

2 hours ago, Sima said:

Being in Spurs’ ground for the NFL was an eye opener.  I wasn’t in any expensive seats but the concourses are massive.

Spurs stadium is the best I’ve ever been to by a mile. 

[Wallsendmag]

21 minutes ago, midds said:

The questions seem pretty direct and a bit full on but they need to test the water somehow. I get it's a bit unsavoury asking how much more you'd be prepared to pay, that's a bit naughty, but they need to ask direct questions as they may need to make a billion quid decision in the very near future. I'm not a season ticket holder any longer so I've not been consulted which is fine but I think you just need to be honest and respond to it as face value. They're just putting the feelers out, if people don't want to pay more than they currently do so then they need to say so 

 

Wasn't just sent to ST holders. I'm a member these days and got the email. 

 

The questions were a bit full on asking how much are we prepared to pay and how much do we earn but there's a massive decision going to be made in the not too distant future by the looks of it and as you say, they are clearly testing the water here.